Sviesta Ciba |

Dunduks (

dunduks) rakstīja,
@ 2017-08-11 01:31:00

Ciba vairāk nav uzdevumu augstumos un par jauno melno - skandālu, kurš uz pāris dienām paralizēja Gūgles darbību nācās uzzināt no citiem internetiem.

Neatkarīgi no tā, cik (ne)zinātnisks vai īstenībai (ne)atbilstošs ir memoranda saturs (un cik ļoti tā autors sev visu ko piedēvējis, ieskaitot FM šahā, kam īsti gali neatrodas), mīlīgākais ir tas, ka tas tika sākotnēji izplatīts Gūgles iekšējā grupā veltītai pretrunīgiem viedokļiem (ok, šāda informācija parādījās kāda ieraksta komentāros un to nenoliedza Gūgles darbinieks). PSRS dzimis cilvēks nebūtu uzķēries uz šī āķa.

(Lasīt komentārus) - (Ierakstīt jaunu komentāru)

begemots
2017-08-11 08:54 (saite)

Let me explain. If different groups have minds that are precisely equivalent in every respect, then those minds are functionally interchangeable, and diversity would be irrelevant to corporate competitiveness. For example, take sex differences. The usual rationale for gender diversity in corporate teams is that a balanced, 50/50 sex ratio will keep a team from being dominated by either masculine or feminine styles of thinking, feeling, and communicating. Each sex will counter-balance the other’s quirks. (That makes sense to me, by the way, and is one reason why evolutionary psychologists often value gender diversity in research teams.) But if there are no sex differences in these psychological quirks, counter-balancing would be irrelevant. A 100% female team would function exactly the same as a 50/50 team, which would function the same as a 100% male team. If men are no different from women, then the sex ratio in a team doesn’t matter at any rational business level, and there is no reason to promote gender diversity as a competitive advantage.

On the other hand, if demographic diversity gives a company any competitive advantages, it must be because there are important sex differences and race differences in how human minds work and interact. For example, psychological variety must promote better decision-making within teams, projects, and divisions. Yet if minds differ across sexes and races enough to justify diversity as an instrumental business goal, then they must differ enough in some specific skills, interests, and motivations that hiring and promotion will sometimes produce unequal outcomes in some company roles. In other words, if demographic diversity yields any competitive advantages due to psychological differences between groups, then demographic equality of outcome cannot be achieved in all jobs and all levels within a company. At least, not without discriminatory practices such as affirmative action or demographic quotas.

So, psychological interchangeability makes diversity meaningless. But psychological differences make equal outcomes impossible. Equality or diversity. You can’t have both.

Weirdly, the same people who advocate for equality of outcome in every aspect of corporate life, also tend to advocate for diversity in every aspect of corporate life. They don’t even see the fundamentally irreconcilable assumptions behind this ‘equality and diversity’ dogma.
// http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

(Atbildēt uz šo)

(Lasīt komentārus) -

Navigate: